hi-def vs the bottom line
rdinkel said:
How about mixing MPEG4 and MPEG2 on the same transponder: Two MPEG2; one MPEG4.
Seems like then there would be enough room to make it work in HD--even without MPEG4 being very efficient.
Ya gotta think that's what is planned for in the future...after the new bird is up and on line.
No one knows yet what bandwidth (in any format) a hi def picture would require in mpeg4.
But it's gotta be less, for a good picture, than the current mpeg2.
I had a long chat with an old buddy the other night.
He's a recently retired engineer from KTLA ch 5 in Los Angeles (and before that, KNBC ch 4 LA).
From the tests he'd run and the demonstrations he'd seen, he thinks the boardroom guys have been sold on 720 being
just as good, and at a great savings in bandwidth.
He was actually of that persuasion, and he is one picky SOB when it comes to artifacts in
his video!
So, regardless of what you all think, it's possible that the boardrooms of industry have decided to distribute all these damned hi-def
locals in 720.
It's probably what you'll see more of from everybody.
Frankly, it's a damned shame you can't have network feed in
full def to everyone, and screw the local stations!
Question: Why do we need 30+ cities with their own copy of
CSI up on the satellite fleet?
Answer: Politics.
Who benefits? Cable. Not satellite.
Certainly not in the viewer's best interest.
So, the moral of the story is this... find the lobbyists for cable, and string them up.
If not, learn to live with 720, and be happy ya got that and not 480!